4 ms·

First, they built special hardware to target a specific group that is internationally known to be a frequent target of oppression. So that's going beyond what t

First, they built special hardware to target a specific group that is internationally known to be a frequent target of oppression. So that's going beyond what they normally provide. Second, if you're selling something to a known person, and you have a good reason to know what they're going to do with it. And let's be clear, Cisco totally knew what they were going to be used for in this case. Then you're an accessory.

cloudjacker 11y ago
and they also would not be subject to any civil remedy if they sold such thing to a US agency. the only thing I responded to.
Swannie 11y ago
| First, they built special hardware to target a specific group Is that stated as a fact in the case? I didn't find anything that makes that suggestion.
- jonathankoren 11y ago
  The article explicitly says, "Cisco built a special Falun Gong module into the Golden Shield". Reading the abstract of brief, it looks like "built" is being used to me "specifically sold and configured hardware." So it's not necessarily some special asic, but rather machines configured specifically to target and identify Falun Gong members. Anyway, in the 21st century, the line between hardware and software that runs on dedicated hardware is pretty ill defined.
  - Swannie 11y ago
    I'd encourage you to do more than read an article written by a party with a vested interest, and critically read the linked legal submission. When reading such a court document, remember it is written by a lawyer (or team of laywers) with the intent (explicit or otherwise) of conflating many ideas. Creative naming of artefacts, systems, roles, organisations, etc. are all employed to paint a picture - the most vivid, influential, negative picture possible - whilst still being technically factually. Critical reading of the submission, filtering for technical details suggests that yes, there was indeed integration into existing networks (obviously), and existing databases/systems of record, maybe related to Falun Gong, but frankly the majority of the technical data looks like a description of any intercept network - whether for troubleshooting, traffic analysis, or lawful intercept.

cloudjacker 11y ago

and they also would not be subject to any civil remedy if they sold such thing to a US agency. the only thing I responded to.

Swannie 11y ago

| First, they built special hardware to target a specific group Is that stated as a fact in the case? I didn't find anything that makes that suggestion.

jonathankoren 11y ago
The article explicitly says, "Cisco built a special Falun Gong module into the Golden Shield". Reading the abstract of brief, it looks like "built" is being used to me "specifically sold and configured hardware." So it's not necessarily some special asic, but rather machines configured specifically to target and identify Falun Gong members. Anyway, in the 21st century, the line between hardware and software that runs on dedicated hardware is pretty ill defined.
- Swannie 11y ago
  I'd encourage you to do more than read an article written by a party with a vested interest, and critically read the linked legal submission. When reading such a court document, remember it is written by a lawyer (or team of laywers) with the intent (explicit or otherwise) of conflating many ideas. Creative naming of artefacts, systems, roles, organisations, etc. are all employed to paint a picture - the most vivid, influential, negative picture possible - whilst still being technically factually. Critical reading of the submission, filtering for technical details suggests that yes, there was indeed integration into existing networks (obviously), and existing databases/systems of record, maybe related to Falun Gong, but frankly the majority of the technical data looks like a description of any intercept network - whether for troubleshooting, traffic analysis, or lawful intercept.